Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live  MSNBC  March 21, 2011 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
contest, he will fight to the death, as most people would. and that will mean the deaths of countless people who would survive if we had a quicker, smarter plan that promised a quicker, smarter ending to this thing. i don't like the looks of this campaign for the simple reason it looks like so many others. in an effort to reduce our footprint, we're making it a far longer, more bloody journey to where we're headed in the end. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. more politics head with ce cenk uyger. welcome to the show. tonight, we start with the latest developments in libya, of course. on day three of operation odyssey dawn. they always have cool names. unfortunate because we've got serious violence and that continued today. just hours ago, reports of bombing in tripoli followed by anti-aircraft fire. 12 missiles at military targets
6:01 pm
including one inside the gadhafi compound. that's very interesting. the u.s. commander in the region said the mission had so far succeed informed stopping gadhafi loyalist s from stormin bengha benghazi. they also plan to extend the no-fly zone to include most of the country. meanwhile, the president addressed the situation in libya today in chile, commenting on the u.s. plan to hand over the control of the mission to other coalition members. >> of. >> obviously the situation is evolving on the ground and, how quick live this transfer takes place will be determined by the recommendations of our commanding officers. but let me emphasize that we anticipate this transition to take place in a matter of days, not a matter of weeks. >> that's very interesting news. we're going to get back to that in a second. he also maintained the emphasis
6:02 pm
on the narrow scope of the mission, despite the fact that the united states wants gadhafi to leave. >> our military action is in support of an international mandate from the security council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by colonel gadhafi to his people. now, i also have stated that it is u.s. policy that gadhafi needs to go. and we've got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy. >> that' very breast intere interesting. i don't know how we're going to get him going in a coup of days or get him to hand it over in a couple of days. but reports suggest that gadhafi loyalists still have the upper hand on troops. they open fired, killing at least nine people. eight rebel fighters were
6:03 pm
reportedly killed in an attempt to retake ajdabiya after coming under fire from gadhafi forces. opposition troops were ultimately forced to retreat. is our effort in libya working? well, let's bring in two nbc reporters covering the story. jim maceda first from tripoli. >> hi there, cenk. the latest on the ground is that it's quite here in tripoli now. there's always been three rounds of explosions followed by anti-aircraft fire and tracer rounds. we understand the last one was lethal. there were at least 10, perhaps more cruise missiles that landed in the tripoli naval base pen tripoli nay central port area. that's a certain distance from where we are. we could see some of the
6:04 pm
aftermath of the explosions. a bit of bursts of light and what have you. then, of course, the skies lit up with all of that anti-aircraft fire that has now become routine after three nights. elsewhere, you mentioned a different approach of a strategy that gadhafi could be using more now in these air strikes. you mentioned pro gadhafi forces going into the third largest town in this country. but while inside, they apparently changed their uniforms to -- then they brought in several hundred, we're told, other civilians, all supporters of gadhafi as human shields.
6:05 pm
basically neutralizing any possibility of attacks from the air. human shields now, of course, are becoming more and more prevalent here as you see groups of them, bands of people going around who were clearly with green flags and with the posters, the ubiquitous gadhafi posters, grouping up into potential sites and potential target areas in tripoli. back to you. >> one last question for you. i know we're taking out tanks and the air defense system mainly of libya and gadhafi. but in misrata, did we just not have an opportunity to get to the tanks yet? or did we make a decision not to fire on those tanks? >> that's a very good question. what's hooping in misrata and tripoli is very different than what's going on in the east. in the east, you already have a no-fly zone in effect with
6:06 pm
french and american fighter bombers and jets taking out units. they're not just taking out heavy armor and tanks. they took out a heck of after lot of pro gadhafi troops as well who were exiting benghazi. here around tripoli and misrata, that no-fly zone really isn't in effect yet. they're setting the conditions for that no-fly zone as they continue to take out air defenses, air bases, fuel storage tankers. and targets loo i-- like that. and air command control center at the gadhafi compound overnight. once that's established they will continue the no-fly zone over misrata and you will see a counterattack from the air and on the ground. that's why they're desperate to
6:07 pm
take over tham town before the no-fly zone is set up there. >> that makes exact sense. this's why they're trying to get into that area as quick as possible before their tanks are taken out. thank you so much for your report. all right, now let's go to nbc news chief correspondent jim miklaszewski. jim, tell us what the military is saying right now. do they feel pretty good about what's happened? are they accomplishing their goals so far? >> so far they are. they claim since this operation started not a single military airplane has flown. there's still a few nodules left here and there, a few radars they would like to take out, but so far they're pretty satisfied in terms of the no-fly zone, at least, they've accomplished most of what they set out to do.
6:08 pm
the problem, of course, as we just heard frf jim maceda is there are still some areas where u.s. and coalition forces, primarily u.s., let's not kid ourselves about that, are not flying basis, and that's where some of these ground forces are taking advantage of those blind spots, at least for the time being. but apparently not for long, cenk. >> so how about the idea of handing this over in a couple of days? who do we hand it over to? and do you assess from the pentagon what they consider mission accomplished to be able to do that handoff? >> here's the scenario. the u.s. military has obviously been in the lead here. there have been some strikes, minimal number of strikes from the british. the french launched an air strike on the first day. according to one military official, because they wanted to be first, but since then, they've only been flying and not involved in any of the air
6:09 pm
strikes themselves. and one scenario is that you turn this operation over to a british military commander, for example. the u.s. military would be comfortable with that, and the u.s. military would still carry the majority of the load. now, that load could be considerably lightened once all the radars and anti-aircraft systems are out. once they have a spread their footprint a little wider in terms of those no-fly zones, so that the movements by the libyan ground forces will be held to a minimum. mopefully there will be little left to do militarily, but nevertheless, things like command and control, the mount whitney, the commandship, the aircraft carriers, that's pretty much going to be the domain of the u.s. military for some time to come. >> one last question for you, jim. we understand there might be --
6:10 pm
of course there's a propaganda war going on, but they might be taking dead bodies from morgues, the gadhafi forces? what would they be doing with that? >> intelligence sources intercepted some information that gadhafi's chief of staff ordered military forces to round up dead bodies from morgues and hospitals to place them at some of the sites that had been bombed out by the u.s. and coalition forces. and then take international media to those sites to point out what they would claim were american atrocitieatrocities in libyan civilians on the ground there. so far we haven't heard that they've actually done that. the fact that many of us started reporting it this morning may have made them decide that's probably not going to work and hopefully they've withdrawn that ruse. >> jim miklaszewski, thank you for your time tonight. we thank you. >> okay, cenk. joining me me is jack jacobs and
6:11 pm
the news chief of arabian news channel. that's our long-term plan here? are we really going to hand this thing off in a coup of days? i don't know, it seems unrealistic, doesn't it? >> i was thinking about the name odyssey dawn. it's a very unfortunate name. odyssey means a long, long voyage. >> yeah, i don't know how that jibes with two days. i think that we want to turn it over in a if uh days, but it's going to be turned over to us. it's going to be turned over to nato. >> that seems silly, doesn't it? >> it's just as silly as the ix if on the first day the thing is being run by the french. it's just not true. >> i don't think we have a long-term objective in any strategic sense. we have a military objective that we are achieving which is to set up no-fly zones, no crawl
6:12 pm
zones, no anything zones. we can do that. we're really good at that. but translating this military action into some long-term international strategic objective, it ain't going to work. we are going to turn it over to nato, it appears but i'm not convinced it's much different from moving from one side of the store to the other. >> i know on friday when we talked, you were in favor of this action by the united states. do you think the french and the british can handle it on their own a couple of days from now or does that concern you? >> there are certain things only the united states can do. and unfortunately or fortunately, this is one of them. there has to be american leadership of some sort, but i also understand the reluctance of thf president to appear as if he's not engaged as attacking a third muslim country in one deca decade. of course the president is ta talking to more than one
6:13 pm
audience. he has the domestic audience and the audience from the middle east. so they have to be careful. it will fall on the shoulders of the americans because they have certain specific capabilities that only the united states possesses and not the french and the brits. i think the americans as we've heard would probably be comfortable with the british leadership, flot necessarily french leadership because they're opportunist and will try to gain some credi we have no certainty about the outcome. sing if the capabilities of moammar gadhafi have been destroyed, especially air power and certain attacks on the ground troop, this will embolden the rebels this will create dynamics whereby you might see army officers defecting. you might see the tribes supporting gadhafi. when they see the wind is sth t
6:14 pm
shifting, they may change their loyalties. but i think we've seen in the first few weeks the majority of the people do not want to be ruled by this man any longer. this could give them a chance to express it. offering a helping hand to the libyans so the libyan themselves will do the job. >> right, colonel jacobs, what if we do as much as we can from the air, and we get into a couple of days from now where we bombed all the tanks and gadhafi is still obviously going to be in control of tripoli, the rebels are in control of benghazi, what are we going to do then? are we going to split the country? >> it may split itself just by virtue of the fact that we are not interested in entering the country and nato isn't either and go down to forcibly evict gadhafi, eliminate completely people who are loyal to him and
6:15 pm
turn everything over to the rebels, whoever they are. we're not going to do that. and as a result of that, the most likely event seems to be a drift towards kind of a biforkate ebifo biforcated country. there's a cease-fire now. gadhafi still has his forces. if they're not moving towards the rebels, probably not going to bomb them. so they're going to be sitting there. and there's this eerie, something of a cease-fire. and then you have a country that's divided more or less in two. >> number one, colonel jacobs brought up an interesting point, who are the rebels. we know they're a tribe in b benghazi. >> nobody wants to split libya into two or three parts,
6:16 pm
whatever. and as far as the rebels are concerned, again, this is not being driven by a huge meta narrative or driven by one ideology. it is somewhat similar to what happened in tunisia and egypt. it was a spontaneous, popular movement. people had enough and they went to the streets to express their opinions and get rid of this autocratic leader. we are learning more about the rebels. we know most of the representatives abroad, but we are discovering those who are inside, some of those who are under the rebellion now, people used to be part of the old regime, gadhafi's regime, members in the military, members in the civilian government before, tribal leaders, students and others. and i think the secretary of state, hillary clinton, met them. we are learning more about them. i agree we should not bank everything on them, but definitely this is not a movement that's driven by the
6:17 pm
islamists, although you will find them later on. they are part of the social fabric and that's a fact of life you have to deal with. but this movement is not driven by one overcharging ideology. it's driven by people who have had enough of 42 years of the rule of this man. and i think they should be given a chance to express their opinion and to get rid of him. >> all right, colonel jack jacobs. thank you both for your time tonight. colonel jacobs will be back to discuss what lessons we can learn from our mistakes in the past in military intervention and the successes that we've had. >> we learn from mistakes? >> we're going to try. now the political debate. some are for and some are totally against it. congressman dennis ckusinich ha even raised the specter of
6:18 pm
impeachment. how are you getting to a happier place? running there? dancing there? how about eating soup to get there? campbell's soups fill you with good nutrition, farm-grown ingredients, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
>> republicans love bombing and war, right? so shouldn't they love president obama taking action in libya? i know it's shocking but it turns out they're all finding ways to criticize it. as my grandmother would say, whoo. we'll tell you all the different ways they've found to criticize the president, even if they agree with him. on those sporty european roads. it went back to school, got an advanced degree in technology. it's been working out -- more muscle and less fat. it's only been two years, but it's done more in two years than most cars do in a lifetime.
6:21 pm
>> of. >> as we've seen already, the debate in libya isn't shaking out over party lines.
6:22 pm
for those who support the campaign, it's seen as a necessity, aimed at preventing the mass human casualties that take place in instances when the u.s. doesn't intervene like in rwanda in 19949. but detractors say at our involvement comes at a time when the u.s. military is stretched already way too thin. already, we have nearly 100,000 ground troops in afghanistan and close to 50,000 soldiers in iraq. that's a point that dennis kucinich made on friday. >> we don't have the resources to pursue this. we've got great pilots, people whol can do their job, but we're spreading ourselves way too thin already. one has to ask, what are they thinking? >> one thing he's definitely right about is that operation odyssey dawn is quite expensive. the first day of strikes cost coalition forces well over $100 million in missiles alone.
6:23 pm
there's also a growing chorus of progressive congressmen who feel the president needs congressional authorization to be involved in this conflict. one representative said, our allies in britain france, and the arab nations have sophisticated military and they're capable of carrying out the orders from the u.n. if the president intends to engage the u.s. forces, he has an obligation to recall congress and ask for such authority. so was this the right move? let's bring in my next guest who takes a different position. joining me now is representative gregory meeks. first, let's have clarity on your position. what do you think? is this the right move? >> i think the president did deliberate. he made sure this wasn't a go it alone type of operation. he made sure we had the united nations, all of our allies. there was after 10-0 vote. russian and china abtakened. they could have stopped it if they thought, you know, it
6:24 pm
wasn't the right thing to do. the arab league was involved. the president did exactly what i think he should have done. now, would i have preferred the president to come, if there was time to come to congress and talkeded to us? of course i would have preferred that. but there was a need. we saw innocent civilians being killed. the world came together. he said because of the unique assets we had, we would be doing this for a short duration and giving over the leadership to someone else. that's the appropriate thing to do. >> some of these congressmen safd hey look, the constitution is clear, you need dock to authorize it. what do you say to that point? >> well, i say, you know, looking at situations in the past, especially post the cold war, we had two such situations in bosnia and kosovo. i looked to see whether or not there was preauthorization at those interventions when there
6:25 pm
was specifically a no-fly zone that was requested by the united nations, an exact similar circumstance and there was not a prior resolution of congress at that time. i know previously there's been a lawsuit gone through war powers and the supreme court has ruled on it. >> so there's no question it's happened in the past. i know some want to put an end to it, both republicans and democrats. you have a long list. on the republican side and on the left side. it's an interesting question, no doubt about it. but to go to the substance of these strikes, you know, other things that people are saying, including congressman kucinich, wait a minute, we're in the middle of two others wars. that seems like a fair point. >> we're in this world together. what i talked about previously, people who are comparing it to josh george bush. this is not it's my way or the highway.
6:26 pm
george bush was going, the french wasn't there. we even changed french fries to freedom fries. we went against all of our allies. we didn't want to work together with them. this is the exact opposite of what's taking place right now. the president made sure we're working together. all of europe, all of the arab league, that we're moving in pursuit together. >> what if it turns out hey look, we couldn't take gadhafi out. that's an embarrassment. the president says he's got to take gadhafi out. it doesn't take a couple of days, it takes a couple of months and the costs add up. would you change your position then? >> we saw general mullins yesterday. he said the operation, and i've heard continually it's not about taking gadhafi out. the operation is about saving lives of innocent civilians. the president said we're going to be here for a short period of time. and if that operation should
6:27 pm
change, it's going to be a long-term situation, then i think it would be appropriate -- the president then must come to congress to get that authorized. and i think that we as members of congress, if we see that this president, and if he's not kept his word, we have in our authority to cut the funding and we'll make that decision appropriately. >> that's clear, that's clear. >> that's absolutely clear. that would be our remedy. but this president has said, and i'm going to take him at his word until he shows that his word is not accurate, that we're not going to be in the leadership of this no-fly zone, after a short duration of time. >> right, right. we'll have to see how it plays out, too. we could technically not be in the leadership, but at the same time, they're using our airplanes and our forces. thanks for being with us. we'll have more on the attacks on libya. but first, the story at the
6:28 pm
nuclear plant continues. we're going to try to get at the truth there. and pictures show american troops posing with dead afghan civilians have surfaced. the united states apologized, calling it repugnant. but can this be the abu ghraib of afghanistan? let's hope not.
6:29 pm
homeowners -- rates have been going up, but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at, where customers save an average of $293 a month. call lending tree at... today. ♪ when it's planes in the sky ♪ ♪ for a chain of supply, that's logistics ♪ ♪ when the parts for the line ♪ ♪ come precisely on time ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ a continuous link, that is always in sync ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ there will be no more stress ♪ ♪ cause you've called ups, that's logistics ♪
6:30 pm
collide with original heath toffee bars, every delicious cookie is crammed with chocolatey toffee joy. ♪ chips ahoy!... [ crunch ] crammed with joy.
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
>> puck shim maf nuke -- fukushima nuclear plant was crippled by the earthquake and tsunami. officials say the cause of the smoke and its radiation levels are being investigated. now remember those power lines were supposed to be connected a long time ago. again, raising the question of the voracity of the information being shared by the tokyo company and the japanese government. meanwhile, the broader scope of the disaster is becoming more defined. more than 18,000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami and it left more than 450,000 living in shelters. and in a report released today, the world bank estimates the disaster caused $235 billion worth of damage. they say it could take five years for japan to rebuild. but economists are saying that despite initial detrimental
6:33 pm
affects to the japanese economy, the rebuilding will likely end up as a good thing in the long term. which honestly, i don't believe. japan is a crushing debt burden and this cannot help that. it's interesting. me versus the economists of the world. let's see who's right. all right, now, what's the acceptable amount of military power in libya and will operation odyssey dawn work? we look at examples of u.s. military intervention in the past to the see what worked and what didn't work to help us determine what we can do right in libya. we'll get answers from colonel jack jacobs and juan cole next. so you have five brothers.
6:34 pm
tough being the only girl. aw, there's the man of the house. who's this ? this is rufus. hey, rufus. he's actually pretty talented. you wanna see him do a trick ? ok. hey rufus. who do we love ? we love our bank. we love our bank. we love our bank. we love our bank. yes, yes. you really love your bank don't you. ally bank customers love our 24/7 customer care
6:35 pm
that allows you to talk to a real person anytime. ally. do you love your bank ? lord of the carry-on. sovereign of the security line. you never take an upgrade for granted. and you rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i deserve this. [ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do.
6:36 pm
go national. go like a pro. the end game of the operation in libya is far from clear. even american officials acknowledge it could end with gadhafi still in power. but from past conflicts, we can find clues about when the u.s. military might succeed in its objective and when it won't. now for most of the last decade, of course, we've been in iraq and afghanistan, long messy war
6:37 pm
where is we used massive amounts of ground troops. there's still big questions hovering over the outcomes of those conflicts, but it seems safe to say it does not appear to be a model we would like to emulate. i would certainly not like to emulate it. there's a big difference between these wars and what's happening in libya. iraq was supposedly about weapons of mass destruction. afghanistan was hunting down al qaeda. at least it was a decade ago. but in libya it's humanitarian, the protection of civilians from the wrath of moammar gadhafi. and in the past, the u.s. has sometimes succeeded in such missions and sometimes it hasn't. what lessons can we learn from those conflicts? let's take a look. in 1983, u.s. forces with were part of a multinational peacekeeping effort in lebanon's civil war. an attack on barracks killed 241 troops. shortly later, the u.s. withdrew ground forces and the war went
6:38 pm
on for seven more years. the u.s. intervened in the early '90s in somalia as part of the united nations coalition. operations there included the battle of mogadishu in which 18 americans were killed and two black hawk helicopters were shut down. afterwards, the u.s. military directed officials to stop all fighting except in self-defense. the civil war continues to this day. hundreds of thousands of died. lesson -- don't send in troops and black hawk helicopters into a middle of a civil war with no plan. the u.s. didn't take action in the genocide in rwanda in 1994. and estimated 800,000 people were killed in the span of just a few months. lesson there -- if you sit it out, be prepared to deal with the fact that you did nothing as hundreds of thousands of people died. now, the bosnian war was one conflict in which international
6:39 pm
efforts did eventually put an end to genocide. peacekeeping missions intensified over a three-year period, stating in 1992. nato finally brought the conflict to an end by enforcing a no-fly zone with air strikes. peace came in 1995. nato's no-fly zone and air strikes played a decisive role in the balkans again just a few years later in the kosovo war in 1999. in that case, the bombing campaign led from serbian forces withdrawing from kosovo and eventually the down fall of milosevic. lesson? turns out no-fly zones can work even if they are sometimes messy and take a while to enforce. the question is, when they work, why do they work? with me now is msnbc military analyst and retired army colonel jack jacobs and juan cole, professor of history at the university of michigan. they're going to try to help me answer that question. what do you think we gained from
6:40 pm
those lessons in bosnia and kosovo. what did we learn from that success that we can apply from libya. >> if we remember what we did and what we didn't do, it's useful, but we frequently don't do that. there's a coup of lessons. the first is air power and air superiority are very useful and sometimes essential and they can really have a big impact on whether or not your goals are achieved but they can't do it by themselves. more likely than not we have a situation where you have to put boots on the ground. that means you're going to be involved in whatever is taking place on the ground and you don't want to do that unless you're prepared to wait it out for a long period of time. you have to start at the end and work backwards. it's the objective first, what are you trying to achieve? and until you answer that, you can't employ -- use military force in any case, because you don't have an objective. and sometimes, when we fail, it's because we used military force without an objective.
6:41 pm
>> right. professor cole, let me go to you. i know that general clark when he was enforcing the no-fly zone in kosovo says that ground troops, at least the threat of ground troops on the border made a big difference. do you think we can pull this thing off without at least the threat of ground troops? >> you want to protect the people of benghazi from being mask massacred then yes, we can do that from the air. the air strikes can take out tanks and that's what the french did on sunday. if the objective is to overthrow the gadhafi regime, then doing that kind of thing, taking territory without boots on the ground is almost impossible. >> okay.
6:42 pm
so we have agreement on that. and we've seen, once we have troops on the ground, it's a disaster 9 out of 10 times it seems like. >> until you're willing to put lots and lots of troops on the ground. >> which we did in afghanistan and iraq, and it was still a disast per. another objective did not match the force that we had. >> if you say ground troop are a disaster, but we can separate them, and it looks like we've begun to separate them, so what do you think is the ultimate answer here? do we have two different states? how long can we go with a no-fly zone if they've got a long war as gadhafi is promising? >> it costas lot of money to shoot tomahawks. they cost almost $1.5 million a piece. we can fire at them with the munition on planes and we can wait them out. we can do this for a long, long time. the politics aside. the fact of the matter is it's not going to change things on the ground. the rebels need arms, they need ammunition, they need training, they need leadership, they need
6:43 pm
an objective. just encouraging them to do better, giving them impetus because we've removed a lot of the forces that are against them is not going to make them succe successful. >> professor, real quick. what's our actions here? is it realistic to think about assassination? is it to get a mutiny from the troops, the mercenaries supporting gadhafi? or do we just say gadhafi is staying there, we'll just separate the two sides? >> well, i think it's unpredictable. when you go into this kind of situation, you don't know what's going to happen. i say we stick to the mission. to the extent the u.s. is involved in it, its mission should be humanitarian. if gadhafi looks like he's going to massacre people, he should be stopped from doing that. how the libyans work out their subsequent political arrangement should be up to the libyans and i'm not so pessimistic about the possibility that the rest of the libyans will throw ka daffy
6:44 pm
under the bus over time. two or three weeks ago, it looked like gadhafi was toast. so many people in the country had turned against him. it's only the deployment of his tanks and air force that turned that around for him. if you take that out of the equation, which is what the u.n. is doing, then it may well be he can't survive. >> all right. we'll, of course, follow it. very interesting. thank you both so much. now coming up, the 2012 wannabes are predictably ripping president obama for bombing libya. i thought they loved bombing. everyone is a critic. set it in motion... and it goes out into the world like fuel for the economy. one opportunity leading to another... and another. we all have a hand in it.
6:45 pm
because opportunity can start anywhere, and go everywhere. let's keep it moving. ♪ [ whistle blows ] oh! [ baby crying ] ben harper: ♪ what started as a whisper every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing. ♪ slowly turned into a scream ♪ there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? how are you getting to a happier place? running there? dancing there? how about eating soup to get there? campbell's soups fill you with good nutrition, farm-grown ingredients, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.
6:46 pm
>> republicans have found creative ways to criticize president obama over libya, even when they say they agree with him. how in the world do that i do that? a little sick. sick?! you gonna let a sore throat beat you? you're fearless! ahhhhhhhhh! atta boy! [ male announcer ] halls. a pep talk in every drop.
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
now, there's an old expression -- all roads lead to rome. for the republicans, it furns out oall roads lead to krit imof president obama. every one of his policies is eventually declared a failure. the only question is figuring out why. i give you everyone is a critic, the board game edition. you're a republican, president obama a democrat, has authorized action in libya. you know what you have to do. criticize. but you have a lot of fails to
6:49 pm
make the case that president obama is failing. there's the obama is dithering line. that's the criticism of choice for the old 2008 gop ticket. >> he waited too long. there's no doubt in my mind about it. but now it is what it is. i regret that it didn't -- we didn't act much more quickly and we could have. but that's not the point now. the point is let's get behind this effort. >> i won't criticize what his foreign policy has been, but to answer his question, certainly there would have been more decisiveness, less dithering and more decisiveness. >> she said she wouldn't criticize it and then she criticized it. she struggles with the meaning of words. do you remember when the dixie chicks criticized our president while palin was abroad? apparently they stopped caring about that once obama was in congress.
6:50 pm
here's lindsay graham. >> i think the president has caveated it way too much. it's almost like this is a nuisance. it's a great opportunity to replace a tyrannical dictator. we should seize the moment and talk about replacing him, not talking about how limited we will be. >> there's another the inexplicable claim that obama isn't launching enough attacks on enough countries. newt gingrich says he would understand our actions in libya much better if obama were taking military action in more countries. quote, it's impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in libya, except opportunism and news media publicity. iran and north korea are vastly bigger threats. zimbabwe dictator robert mugabe has killed more people, the sudanese dictatorship has killed more people and there's a lot of bad dick kay tors doing bad things. w watch out zimbabwe, we're coming!
6:51 pm
you know they're struggling to come up with criticism if yhe's not solving all the world's countkou problems all at once. then there's mitt romney who's so lacking in convictions that he has to, according to politico, quote, avoid weighing in or offering specifics. how very, very bold. but in in lue of actual policy criticized obama for tiptoeing behind the europeans. gee, i wonder what that refers to. you can follow any line of criticism, but just remember, when you're playing the republican game, what the country should actually do in libya is entirely irrelevant. the only thing you know for sure is that failure for president obama is the only option in this game. now, let me bring in politics editor for
6:52 pm
come on, am i seeing this wrong, or have they found every conceivable way to criticize? >> i i think you missed one. my favorite one is let's use this as an opportunity to emasculate president obama. lindsay graham making this, this is a case where the president didn't want to intervene but hillary clinton did. thank goodness for all the strong women around president obama otherwise we wouldn't have been involved. basically said thank goodness there was a woman nagging president obama to go do this. >> that's perfect. you hit hilly clinton and obama at the same time. >> that's another angle. there is actually one somewhat legitimate strain from a few voices and it's fair we should point out. rand paul, raising the legitimate constitutional concern, but that's not what newt gingrich is talking about or sarah palin is talking about. >> you're right. to criticize president obama over his actions, that makes
6:53 pm
sense. we do it sometimes. and it depends on what your perspective is. but it seems like he can't catch a break from these guys. is there anything he could have done in libya where those republican presidential contenders would have said you know what, he nailed it. >> in romney's quote, you see the reverse logic. when you go back to the iraq war in 2002 and 2003, the french were enemy number one in this country because they wouldn't go along with us. now we let the french take the lead it's, you're tiptoeing behind the french. >> no, no, that's perfect. you're right, whether you're with the french, you lose. if you're against the french, you lose. >> are you surprised by this? it's interesting, because you bring up the hillary clinton thing that lindsay graham brings up. there was a moment it became clear that obama was going to supplant the clintons as the face of the democratic party. and obama was the sympathetic character, and the minute he supplanted them, a flip
6:54 pm
switched. since then this is the logic at first. >> after they do all this, they will say well, he gets attacked so much, he's a divisive figure. >> how dare you not unify us, right. >> thank you so much for your time tonight. we appreciate it. a ridiculous piece of legislation is now headed to the house for a vote. it reaif i weffirms our faith i. will god be angry with us if we don't?
6:55 pm
inside the 2011 dodge journey is an 8.4-inch touch screen that lets you control the stereo volume, radio tuning, climate controls, turn-by-turn navigation, and bluetooth activation -- technology inside technology controlling more technology.
6:56 pm
welcome to the future. now lease the new 2011 dodge journey mainstreet for $299 a month for well-qualified lessees. but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at plus, get the best deal or we'll pay you $1,000. call lending tree at... today.
6:57 pm
dwight d. eisenhower signed into law the motto of the united states "in god we trust." just last week, the house judiciary committee passed a bill to reaffirm that motto and it's now headed for a full house vote. yes! because we had nothing better to
6:58 pm
do. it's not like libya is any trouble at all. it's not like we have an ailing economy. we have to reaffirm that god rocks. virginia congressman randy forbes, the founder of the congressional prayer caucus encourages the motto in all public schools and government institutions. forbes says he wants to reaffirm the motto because he's troubled by a pattern of omitting god from our heritage. really? who's omitting it? every time i see after politician they can't stop talking about god and how much he loves america. do these goof balls really believe that god plays favorites and likes america more than china or bermuda? ok of cours of course, it already has a number of supporters including mike pence who says i think god is, and he rewards those, including nations who earnestly seek him. in their view, god is so small
6:59 pm
if he do not constantly sing his praises he'll be a little hurt. he'll be like head reed, i'm hurt dog, and help other countries more. who could be childish enough to believe that? other than congressmen. get a load of senator jim demint who thinks we can actually affect the size of god. >> i believe the bigger people get, the smaller god gets. you can not vf a free society that way. >> is the size of god tied to the size of our government? is god that small and dependent on us? if the epa adds one more regulation, does that shrink god, oh, no, i'm shrinking. because of the epa? what if the post office adds one more zip code. look, if youf ear're a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on